I received a PhD in analytical chemistry from Penn State in 2005, with a dissertation entitled "Dynamic and Asymmetric Protein Microcompartmentation in Aqueous Two-Phase Vesicles." Put simply, I developed a primitive artificial model system for testing the hypothesis that cells construct themselves and carry out their functions based in part on the fact that "cells have a lot of stuff in them." That and my postdoctoral research utilized analytical tools to address biological questions.


Why did you start this science blog?

I have a unique talent for communicating highly technical subject matter, especially chemistry and its interfaces with other scientific disciplines, with diverse audiences. Why not use this talent?

Furthermore, the public has a right to know what scientific and engineering research is being carried out in its name, and few science writers report on chemistry topics. Hey, at least it often prevents me from being scooped.

How is science writing handled in the media? I personally and respectfully feel that there's plenty of room for improvement.

As a general rule, there are two broad types of science reporting in the United States media. One is written for a scientific audience, with varying degrees of technical content that will not attract (and are not written to attract) lay audiences.

The other is written specifically for lay audiences. Here, the reporting is often dumbed down to an uninformative level, and/or covers inane topics, e.g., "womens' desks harbor more germs."

There are plenty of exceptions to this rule, such as Ars Technica and physorg.com, and I wish they were more widely known and read among audiences without a formal science background. However, among the general and most widely-read media, it is far more common to encounter unsatisfactory science reporting, especially the typical approach of almost completely ignoring how the science under discussion was carried out.

The goal here is to write for a lay audience, and to include technical, yet accessible, content. The reporting will be directly from the technical literature.

The most important motivations are to draw a diverse range of readers, to convince them that science is relevant to their lives and makes worthwhile discoveries, and to increase public interest in and appreciation for science.


What's with the logo?

I assume you're stuck in my frames, and can see the website logo; if not, click here. That is a microscopic image of an aqueous two-phase vesicle (from my graduate student days). Left: two water-based polymer phases, poly(ethylene glycol) and dextran; middle: the "cell" membrane (note no membrane at polymer phase boundary); right: protein partitioned to the dextran polymer phase. Such "synthetic cells" provide possible insight into how real cells carry out their functions.

Why is it up there? Because the image is cool. I thought that part was obvious.


I always enjoy hearing from the "peanut gallery" (both positive comments and constructive criticism). Drop me a line: mslong79@gmail.com